From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_SHORT
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 15 Jan 92 15:51:21 GMT
From: ajpo!progers@sei.cmu.edu  (Pat Rogers)
Subject: Re: Ada 9X paper
Message-ID: <836@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1992Jan15.142527.5277@lonex.rl.af.mil>, vanderwerkend@lonexb.rl.af.
mil (Dan Vanderwerken) writes:

> [ ... most Ada compilers]
> have too many bugs to be useful.  Even more "mature" compilers have demonstra
ted
> enough bugs to make them worthless.  In fact, we are betting a lot that the
> "latest" version of a certain compiler will have much needed features and
> "fixed" bugs.  
> 

What target ISA are you using? I know of several compilers I would categorize
as quite mature and of high quality, but perhaps your target is one of the
more recent ones to be avialable with Ada...

We're doing a distributed Ada implementation (2/3 done) on bare 68030's
and R3000's. The compiler we use for the 68K's is one of the best I've seen 
in 12 years (OK, its early '92, so 11 years) of Ada use.  It is 
certainly as good as the compilers for the languages I used before Ada.
That is not meant to be a soapbox defense of all Ada compilers, just a
suggestion that Ada compilers are like ALL compilers -- some are better than
others, some are very good, and some just plain stink.

RE: The TCP/IP stuff, we did one for our project, it works, and I never 
want to see it again.  I strongly recommend using a vendor's implementation 
whenever possible, such as Ready's ARTX.

Regards,

Pat Rogers
SBS Engineering
Houston
progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu